Mark Murphy: Freed American soldier is no hero

They served their country on Okinawa, their precious blood spilled on the stark coral sands of the South Pacific. Heroes stormed the rocky shores of Normandy — nearly a million young men who braved the withering fire of machine guns and the incendiary blasts of mortar shells to save the entire world from Nazi tyranny.

Thousands more fill the rolling hills of Arlington National Cemetery, where rows of bone-white gravestones stand in mute attention to the ultimate price each U.S. soldier paid in the defense of freedom.

And then I will show you Bowe Bergdahl.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl took an oath to defend the United States “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” He enlisted in the Army with an implicit understanding that he would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his brothers in arms, watching their backs even as they watched his. And yet on June 30, 2009, he put down his weapon and left his post — eventually ending up in the withered wastes of southwestern Afghanistan in the hands of his nation’s sworn enemy, the Taliban.

From these actions alone, one thing is certain: Bowe Bergdahl is no hero.

What Bowe Bergdahl is, in fact, is a deserter — a man who turned his back on his brothers. Those same brothers searched for him, day after blazing day and night after frigid night, even losing several of their number in the process. Now, five years after he left his post to join the enemy, he has been traded for five notorious Taliban Guantanamo detainees — a maneuver superficially legitimized by a flimsy arrangement that will send the five enemy combatants to Qatar with a promise that they will behave themselves for a year.

The Obama administration has attempted to ennoble the whole sordid affair, wrapping it in a patriotic cloak of red, white and blue even as it muddled the facts and accused Sgt. Bergdahl’s former platoon mates of grandstanding. The administration’s obfuscator-in-chief, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, even went so far as to say that Bergdahl served his country “with honor and distinction” — a statement so brazenly farcical that her own colleagues felt compelled to offer various interpretations of Ms. Rice’s bizarre assertion.

The president himself doubled down on the whole deal by asserting that the controversy over Sgt. Bergdahl’s release was “a controversy whipped up in Washington” that he had “no apology” for. Indeed.

The President has been justifiably criticized for not notifying Congress about the impending hostage exchange deal, as required by law. The surreal spectacle of seeing the president standing with a smile on his face next to Sgt. Bergdahl’s bearded father as Bob Bergdahl addressed his son (and his son’s captors, presumably) in their native tongue and praised Allah in Arabic did not sit well with most Americans.

But the issue I’m addressing here is a simpler one: Did Bergdahl honor the commitment he made to his nation and to fellow soldiers when he enlisted?

The answer appears to be an almost unequivocal no. Despite the unorthodox circumstances, the initial response to Sgt. Bergdahl’s release was generally favorable. The president’s statement that “we don’t leave our men and women in uniform behind” was a noble assertion — and, indeed, we shouldn’t, not ever.

But the poison pill that the president will be forced to swallow is this one: ultimately, the truth must be heard. Thousands of Americans who have placed their lives at risk in the service of their country will demand it. There will be an investigation, perhaps even a court martial. And ultimately, Sgt. Bergdahl, a man who walked away from his obligations as a soldier, will be forced to delineate why he did exactly that.

There are times when one must deal with the Devil to see justice prevail. Negotiating with the Taliban is one such deal.

But now we have liberated a deserter, a man whose tarnished military record is an affront to every service member who lost life or limb. Bowe Bergdahl may even be a traitor; on this point, the details remain murky. One thing is certain: there is angst and controversy on the horizon. And justice, however bitter its taste, must ultimately be served.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

What tribunal has declared the young soldier a deserter? The court of the cable news channel? The judges who are TV talking heads? On whose authority do you have it doctor to declare his supposed desertion as fact? Finally, how do you presume to criticize a president's decision to bring one of our soldiers home by implying that he was unworthy of the effort? Such talk is unworthy of Americans and you should be ashamed of your dispensing poison. We don't leave our soldiers behind, ever. Leave it at that and let those who know what they are talking about investigate the circumstances of the young man's capture and a proper tribunal determine his fate. Your column just poisons the well a bit more.

about Bowe Bergdahl and the fact that "he is a deserter", I am trying to refrain from posting any opinions about him and the circumstances of his "leaving his post" until all is said and done. We just don't know what his state of mind was at the time. He may have been just young, dumb and stupid or there may have been more at play here. The one thing I will post as an opinion is his father seems to be either a real nut case or wants to embarass his son further.

Before we pass judgement on this young man lets wait until all the evidence is in and then we can opine until the cows come home. That is hard for me to do. I was in the Air Force myself having joined a few months after high school and I know that one of the first things drilled into us was, you do not leave your post ever. You do not walk away ever. You could be branded a traitor. In a time of war that is a big No. no. But as I stated earlier, let's give this young man the benefit of the doubt. Let us see what he has to say. Let's not forget that 5 years in captivity can do a lot to change one's opinion of the enemy and/or not one's comrades.

I appreciate your points here. And I should have been more clear in delineating my position. I think the President had no choice but to bring this young man home. I did, in fact, say in the article that the notion that we should leave no American citizen behind is a "noble assertion"--and that we in fact should never leave an American behind as a prisoner in a foreign land. I also feel that he had no choice but to negotiate with the Taliban; the old saw that we "don't negotiate with terrorists" doesn't hold water here, as we had no other option but to negotiate with his captors if we wanted Sgt. Bergdahl freed. I made the point that sometimes one must "make a deal with the Devil" precisely for this reason. The issue was not whether Sgt. Bergdahl was "worthy" of a deal to be freed; the issue, instead, was about whether the administration, which made a huge public spectacle celebrating his release, was ready to deal with the inevitable necessity of finding out the truth about a man that the Pentagon concluded in 2010 was a likely deserter. That is bound to be a painful experience. I do not pretend to be his judge and jury--but the mere fact that there will, in all likelihood, be a judge (and perhaps a jury) is a sobering point in this difficult situation.

In spite of Dr. Murphy's painful attempt to say that the president did the right thing he then had to make sure that his LTE be mixed with the proper amount of how much he dislikes this president.

Bottom line is that yes the president did the right thing and the allegations as to the soldier's conduct can now be properly ascertained within the proper institutions without those who, without any facts except superficial ones, have already tried and found him guilty.

Those of us who live in the real world fully understand where you're coming from, and those who live in dream land will never understand anything that is not coated with blue Kool-Aid and Bamie approved.

Excellent op-ed, despite expected criticism from the hard left. It's quite obvious to rationale people that Bergdahl left his post voluntarily. This has been corroborated by many of the fellow soldier's that served in his unit. He will have his day in court, soon enough.

Although I said I did not want to pass judgement on Bowe Berghdal until all of the evidence was in, it seems pretty clear that he did indeed desert. His team mates know first hand what happened and many of them confirmed that Sgt Bergdahl put down his weapon and left his post. It is also clear that several young men were killed while searching for him. These facts are not in question.

Although what happened is not in dispute I am trying not to pass judgement on him personally because we do not know his state of mind. If he was naive and stupid that is one thing. But if he snapped (temporary insanity) because of being in a war zone it's quite another. We just don't know. But the men who died looking for him will be dead forever.

War is hell. It does terrible things to the young men and women who have to participate in this hell. No one who goes to war comes back the same person. Look at all the cases of PTSD. It is rampant amoung our military past and present.

I'm not excusing Sgt. Bergdahl. I am just trying to understand why he would do such a thing. But above all, we have to think of the young men who are forever dead because of his actions. It's such a tragedy any way you look at it.

In your letter you claim a strident position. You get challenged and you back track and soften your LTE words. The fact is that we use the term Hero far too often today.
Regardless, you are a Gastroenterologist.
I promise that you simply do not have the education, skill, training, experience, knowledge or even the tools to evaluate how the military and its commanders and US diplomacy determine how to resolve such situations.
You have no frame of reference and you are way out of your league.
I agree you have one area on which you can comment given your lack of foundation to make a real comment. That is: you don't like the fanfare about the guy's release. On that, so what? Your fellow, Geo Bush flew to a Carrier and announced we won a war that we did not have a basis to start and which we did not finish.
So, I suggest that you relieve yourself of the notion that you have a gift of analysis or the ability to provide intelligent comment. You do not.
I await your reply. I hope you can ignore your patients for a bit longer while you respond.

You know, your comments here are unfounded, unless of course YOU were actually in Afghanistan at the time disguised as a mountain goat witnessing/watching what actually went on in those caves...
When I say unfounded, I mean YOU have no evidence as to whether Bergdahl deserted or not. I can imagine the only reason YOU got to give your opinion, and I reiterate OPINION, is because of your sycophantic supporters within Savannah Morning News. Your comments are beyond opinion, and are verging on libel. Be careful what you write Mr Sphincter Doctor. It may bite you right back in the organs on which you operate.

I understand that you qualified your remarks a few times, but the tone of your column and its overall impression is pretty clear. Because of the criticisms and language utilized, it leaves one with the distinct impression that there is no doubt that Obama paid too high a price to bring back someone who is merely a deserter or even a traitor and unworthy of consideration.

Your paragraph below sums it up:

"What Bowe Bergdahl is, in fact, is a deserter — a man who turned his back on his brothers. Those same brothers searched for him, day after blazing day and night after frigid night, even losing several of their number in the process. Now, five years after he left his post to join the enemy, he has been traded for five notorious Taliban Guantanamo detainees — a maneuver superficially legitimized by a flimsy arrangement that will send the five enemy combatants to Qatar with a promise that they will behave themselves for a year."

So, while I appreciate your softening of your stance in your comment, your column remains a divisive one that judges both the soldier and Obama based upon assumptions gleaned mostly from people posturing on the airwaves. It is decidedly uncharitable and unnecessary. We simply have too much discord attached to tough situations such as these. While one might quarrel over whether Obama made a bit too big of a show of getting the young man back, the over-the-top criticisms serve no one except those seeking the usual partisan advantage from discord.

The Army will debrief Bowe and what happened is likely to become clear fairly soon. I think that until such time, refraining from half informed commentary makes the most sense, because what was done was ultimately necessary, whether we like it or not.

where is YOUR proof the good doctor has ignored his patients, in order the express his opinion? IMHO he is just expressing his opinion you can agree or IGNORE it and write your own opinion I'll bet the SMN would publish it.

I am confused and so are many other people about equating "Taliban" and "terrorist". The Taliban at the time of the war were the government of Afghanistan so they wouldn't be considered terrorists (at least the ones that were traded since they have been held captive for 12 years). As with all wars winding down, from the Revolutionary War to now, we have always swapped prisoners of war and I see this instance as no different. We as Americans have a sacred compact with all those serving in uniform that we will do everything in our power to bring them home. I see no problem with that as Dr. Murphy agrees. It is a moral imperative the nation holds dear that this president and all others will honor. Desertion is being AWOL for more than 30 days. Bergdahl had gone AWOL twice before and come back so they are not sure if he would have done the same in this instance if he hadn't been captured. NO ONE except his fellow platoon mates have the right to criticize him and it makes me sad to see those who haven't served to sit in judgement.

Again, thanks for the time you spent in commentary. You'll notice that my response was posted at 4:30 AM. That's what time I got up this morning to take care of my patients. I've been seeing them all day and I'm now in a position to respond to you, as you desired. Beyond this, I'll ignore the ludicrous statement you made about "ignoring (my) patients." It simply has no relevance to the context of this discussion.

Oddly enough, you're right--I don't have the expertise to ascertain how the military resolves situations like the Bergdahl case. I'm merely offering an opinion based upon what I understand about military responsibilities--an opinion based upon the Pentagon's 2010 assertion that Bowe Bergdahl, in all likelihood, abandoned his post. So it's the Pentagon's opinion--an opinion developed by individuals who are, in fact, qualified to make such assessments--that I based my assertion on. Where I think I overstepped myself a bit is best illustrated by Southern Belle's comments. I am not a soldier. I have not served in war. And in my rush to judgement, I failed to take into consideration the potential effects of PTSD in Sgt. Bergdahl's behavior--a valid concern, and one which will sort itself out in the discovery phase of information-gathering which will occur as this goes on.

"Despite the unorthodox circumstances, the initial response to Sgt. Bergdahl’s release was generally favorable. The president’s statement that 'we don’t leave our men and women in uniform behind' was a noble assertion — and, indeed, we shouldn’t, not ever."

I do not fault Obama for doing what had to be done. It was his only choice. And I agree with you that we need more information, and that this information will be forthcoming. On that point we both agree.

Who says that I agree with him on that issue? While I often agree with him, I don't always agree with him--not even close to always :-)

I can understand that there may be circumstances when an American citizen can be targeted for deadly force without due process of law. Emergency situations, when someone is threatening immediate harm to others--holding a gun to someone's head--and the like are the obvious ones. However, in the situations where the government cannot arrest a citizen because they are not within our jurisdiction and are abroad, and they feel that the person presents a real and present danger, but they aren't literally holding a gun to someone's head, they need to prove it. There should be judicial review of any order to kill by a panel of high ranking members of the judiciary. If it is not an immediate emergency, then review is practical and not too much to ask. So, I disagree with him on that.

Would you please quit commenting on things you know nothing about! I was actually in Afghanistan for almost 5 years. You, on the other hand have NEVER been there and must like seeing your name in print. You will type anything that glorifies your liberal democratic views. Please listen to this traitor's comrades, you know, the guys who were actually with him and quit drinking the kool aid. Odumbo has screwed up again!

The point is, you claim a doctor in Savannah Ga should be ashamed for expressing the opinion that Bowe Bergdahl is no hero and a deserter because that case has not been adjudicated. Yet, when the President of the United States OK's the assassination of U.S. citizens by drones without adjudication, we get crickets from you and the other resident progressives.

My opinion, for which I feel no shame, is we should drone any terrorist, citizen or otherwise, who takes up arms against us, Bowe is no hero and a deserter and OJ is guiltier than homemade sin.

OJ walked because the defendant's attorneys made the case about race and not about evidence. No surprise though, when the merits of a case aren't in your favor, throw out the race card. The evidence was so overwhelming against OJ, that even a rookie prosecutor could have obtained a guilty verdict, based on evidence alone. Of course, the liberals in this country and the press, were more than happy to run with this race defense, with a "not guilty" verdict a form of reparation. You know it and the rest of the country knows it. Enough of your typical, liberal spin.

And know some of the codes of military justice in how punishment is meted out in cases of desertion, especially in a war-zone. Whenever someone deserts, during war-time, he should be considered a traitor to his country and to the cause. His parents should have been told such and no efforts should have been made to bring him home via a prison swap. He stopped being an American the moment that he carried out his plans to desert during war-time and as such should not have been considered an American worthy of trading seasoned terrorist for. The White House knows full well that the released terrorist could return to their cause of killing true Americans who take up arms in defense of our country, and unlike Bowe, American fighting men and women do not lay arms down and walk away. Bowe,who is not even worthy of the honor Sgt. Is a pawn who has become relevant as a result of the White House desires to make him newsworthy. I wish Bowe and his family well, but if he had died in captivity, it would have been a fate of his own choosing that he precipitated, when he decided to lay down his weapon and wander off or desert.

Have you forgotten that we live in country that guarantees all of us the right to free speech. That means we get to express our opinions too. People do not have to be military or have participated in a war zone to have an opinion. What happened with Bowe Bertgdahl is front page news. It is an ongoing story. It will be a long time before the end of the story is clear. And by the time all of the evidence is in and the complete story is told we will all have our opinions with the right to express them whether we have served in Afghanistan or not.

In case you forget that, all you have to do is listen to the many pundits on all of the cable news shows. Although these shows have expert military personnel as guests the pundits (hosts) themselves are for the most part non military and their opinions are quite vocal. Also, for the most part their opinions are against everything this administration did to gain the freedom of Sgt. Bergdahl especially releasing 5 high value terrorists back into the field (after one year in Qatar).

We all just have to be patient because it may be some time before we will know the outcome of everything that has happened regarding Sgt. Bergdahl or the reason he left his post and especially why 5 of the "worst of the worse" were let out of Gitmo to perhaps commit more atrocities.

But in the meantime we can all opine all we want to whether we served in a war zone or not. And by the way, my husband and brother are Viet Nam Veterans and my son served 2 tours in Iraq. Although I was in the Air Force I personally have not served in a war zone.

The end of the O.J. Trial, won with race cards is when MOST of the Thinking population lost ALL RESPECT for EVERY THING JUDICIAL. ( Especially Lawyers ) Yes THAT is the day most of the hard working people of the country added 4 words to the end of the Pledge of Allegiance. " and JUSTICE for ALL"........ (who can afford it.)

until the facts are known, then we should not celebrate his return as the President did, for the same reason. There was an investigation after he disappeared that determined he left his post without permission. They could not rule on desertion because they were unsure of his intent when he left. That question will be answered soon. I think had this deal happened without the White House victory lap there would be little controversy. This guys silence says a lot though. You can bet if he had something nice to say, in English, about the administration they would have wheeled him out to a throng of reporters by now.

Please read about the Scottsboro boys and Emmet Tills to see why a lot of people lost faith in the American justice system long before OJ. And yes, I think that OJ was guilty, but the Scottsboro boys and many others who were deemed guilty by a jury of peers were in fact innocent. In the case of Emmet Tills ,murderers came out of the court rooms smiling to applause as juries of their peers refused to find them guilty, even when an preponderance of evidence and eye witnesses proved that they did in fact commit murder. Truth is in a lot of other similar cases, justice has still never been served. So let's not get overwhelmed by our emotions when we talk about justice and losing faith in the justice system.

Nobody had ever heard of those folks, and if they are criminals I won't waste MY time reading about them. ALL I can offer is MY HUMBLE OPINIONS. The O.J. verdict Is when I began DESPISING lawyers as a BREED, and lost a HUGE CHUNK of FAITH in our judicial system.

OJ isn't the topic of the thread. But what the heck, I will explain why I believe the prosecutors are to blame:

Reasonable doubt was literally handed to the defense, and the jury concluded that there was reasonable doubt in a case built on circumstantial evidence:

When you put a witness up, Mark Furhman, who has things in his past such as racist remarks and other negatives and don't reveal them up front to the jury yourselves and instead let the defense go to town on him on cross examination, you allow them to cast suspicion on his credibility and provide a motive for the assertion that evidence was planted. Then, your lab tech walks around with blood samples in her pocket for most of a day, casting doubt on the chain of custody. Then, you cannot account for some of the blood from the samples, raising suspicion that the blood ended up being placed onto the famous gloves. Barry Scheck cross examines your blood evidence witnesses and skewers them. Then your police detective, Fuhrman, exercises his right not to incriminate himself under the 5th amendment on the stand and refuses to answer questions regarding planting of evidence. Then, without knowing whether the gloves will fit, you request the defendant put them on in court anyway, and he is able to make them not fit, handing Johnny his closing argument tag line "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". You say you found hair in OJ's car, but then photos emerge showing reporters leaning all over it before evidence was collected from it.

Finally, your lawyers engage in possibly the worst cross examinations I've ever witnessed, conducting never ending examinations which fail to zero in on salient points and which confuse instead of inform the jury.

Sure, Johnny played on race--Mark Fuhrman racist remarks were perfect for him, and Mark Fuhrman taking the 5th on the stand reinforced the theme--but it was handed to him by the defense, and because of the failure to properly secure evidence and allowing the glove demonstration, you hand him his reasonable doubt too. That's how you lose a case you should have won.